|
||
...so it's worth asking - where's the consensus? I'm not sure I'm seeing it myself, and I've had this watchlisted since December, but haven't had much to add for input. What's questionable to me is why we need this to begin with, but hey. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we label this page as an essay, then consider whether it can be improved or should be deleted. -- Kevin Murray 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
After having poked around the various policy pages on notability and coming up largely empty handed, I'm turning to this page here to see if some discussion on the subject can't be revived. I realize the article was marked 'inactive' but if some more discussion and interest can be generated, I think there is still some need for consensus on this subject.
Briefly discussed above was the issue of small villages and whether they pass inclusion standards. My concern has arisen after trying to edit and improve some articles regarding unincorporated towns tagged {{ importance}}. Previously I had seen people arguing that geographical places had "inherent" notability and did not need further sources to "prove importance", and whether that is some kind of consensus or not I am unsure.
Admittedly my understanding of the issue will be somewhat skewed toward how things work in the United States, particularly the western US, but it could be applicable to villages everywhere. Anyway, my concern is thus : In terms of incorporated cities, towns, and townships, I doubt there is any question as to whether or not they are notable enough for articles - finding sources of information for such entities should be simple. Unincorporated towns that lack government are another matter, and particularly those that are isolated from major population centers, may lack sources of information that are easy to get a hold of. This means that there are many small towns that may have notability of limited and local scope - but does that make them not inclusion worthy?
Further complicating the issue are other unincorporated community entities that are less distinct, such as neighborhoods of a city, subdivisions, master-planned communities, named trailer parks, and the list goes on. In all liklihood it is probably not difficult to establish the existence of these entities, but a question arises as to where to place the bar for inclusion. I find it difficult to set that bar without being arbitrary. In my opinion, an unincorporated town that nevertheless has some kind of cohesive community merits an article of its own, but a neighborhood of an existing city does not (except in the case that it has some kind of historical significance).
Do we use the simple inclusion criteria "If reliable secondary sources can be found then it is notable and warrants its own article"? Is there some other standard of what gets its own article as opposed to what should merely be mentioned under a parent region?
Hoping to get some feedback here! Arkyan 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Unincorporated has different legal meanings in different U.S. States, as well as in different countries. Unincorporated places can be quite large and quite significant. For example, Huntington (CDP), New York has a population of over 18,000. The guideline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is that "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." So the problem you bring up is better handled by merging than deletion. If a place exists, but there is not enough content for a stand alone article, it should be merged into a parent article. But if it is a CDP in the US, it should be left as a stand alone article for consistency. Dhaluza 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Many editors argued for merging them with the articles for the governmental unit (county, city) in which they are located, expressing sentiments similar to those in this proposed guideline. (noted by Edison 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
Just saying. Any suggestions for improvement?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd presume that places on the UNESCO list are definitely beyond "local" curse. National parliaments, national cathedrals (where these exist) are not local either. What about less obvious local places, i.e. Flatiron Building or Basilica of San Domenico? Draw me the line. NVO ( talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I had occasion to refer this essay to a person who wants to write an article about a historic preservation overlay zone in Los Angeles and call it a "neighborhood." I found this piece helpful in organizing some of my own thoughts as well. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 02:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This proposal has now been existence more than ten years without being accepted, and it is a large number of years since there was any discussion about it here. Isn't it time to tag it as
This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
|
||
...so it's worth asking - where's the consensus? I'm not sure I'm seeing it myself, and I've had this watchlisted since December, but haven't had much to add for input. What's questionable to me is why we need this to begin with, but hey. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we label this page as an essay, then consider whether it can be improved or should be deleted. -- Kevin Murray 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
After having poked around the various policy pages on notability and coming up largely empty handed, I'm turning to this page here to see if some discussion on the subject can't be revived. I realize the article was marked 'inactive' but if some more discussion and interest can be generated, I think there is still some need for consensus on this subject.
Briefly discussed above was the issue of small villages and whether they pass inclusion standards. My concern has arisen after trying to edit and improve some articles regarding unincorporated towns tagged {{ importance}}. Previously I had seen people arguing that geographical places had "inherent" notability and did not need further sources to "prove importance", and whether that is some kind of consensus or not I am unsure.
Admittedly my understanding of the issue will be somewhat skewed toward how things work in the United States, particularly the western US, but it could be applicable to villages everywhere. Anyway, my concern is thus : In terms of incorporated cities, towns, and townships, I doubt there is any question as to whether or not they are notable enough for articles - finding sources of information for such entities should be simple. Unincorporated towns that lack government are another matter, and particularly those that are isolated from major population centers, may lack sources of information that are easy to get a hold of. This means that there are many small towns that may have notability of limited and local scope - but does that make them not inclusion worthy?
Further complicating the issue are other unincorporated community entities that are less distinct, such as neighborhoods of a city, subdivisions, master-planned communities, named trailer parks, and the list goes on. In all liklihood it is probably not difficult to establish the existence of these entities, but a question arises as to where to place the bar for inclusion. I find it difficult to set that bar without being arbitrary. In my opinion, an unincorporated town that nevertheless has some kind of cohesive community merits an article of its own, but a neighborhood of an existing city does not (except in the case that it has some kind of historical significance).
Do we use the simple inclusion criteria "If reliable secondary sources can be found then it is notable and warrants its own article"? Is there some other standard of what gets its own article as opposed to what should merely be mentioned under a parent region?
Hoping to get some feedback here! Arkyan 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Unincorporated has different legal meanings in different U.S. States, as well as in different countries. Unincorporated places can be quite large and quite significant. For example, Huntington (CDP), New York has a population of over 18,000. The guideline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is that "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." So the problem you bring up is better handled by merging than deletion. If a place exists, but there is not enough content for a stand alone article, it should be merged into a parent article. But if it is a CDP in the US, it should be left as a stand alone article for consistency. Dhaluza 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Many editors argued for merging them with the articles for the governmental unit (county, city) in which they are located, expressing sentiments similar to those in this proposed guideline. (noted by Edison 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
Just saying. Any suggestions for improvement?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd presume that places on the UNESCO list are definitely beyond "local" curse. National parliaments, national cathedrals (where these exist) are not local either. What about less obvious local places, i.e. Flatiron Building or Basilica of San Domenico? Draw me the line. NVO ( talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I had occasion to refer this essay to a person who wants to write an article about a historic preservation overlay zone in Los Angeles and call it a "neighborhood." I found this piece helpful in organizing some of my own thoughts as well. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 02:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This proposal has now been existence more than ten years without being accepted, and it is a large number of years since there was any discussion about it here. Isn't it time to tag it as
This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |